“The non-disclosure of such relevant facts assumes significance”: the Patna High Court has refused to transfer divorce case proceedings from Patna to Begusarai, finding that the wife had not disclosed that she herself had filed several cases in Patna and lived there.
Patna: The Patna High Court has dismissed a wife’s petition to transfer the divorce case filed by her husband from the Family Court at Patna to the Family Court at Begusarai, holding that she suppressed material facts, the case was at an advanced stage and a transfer would cause hardship to the husband, who works outside the State [Rajni Kumari v. Saurabh Kumar].
Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy delivered the oral judgment on October 30, 2026 in Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 3462 of 2023.
Facts the petition left out
The Court held that the wife’s cases at Patna and her residence there were material facts missing from the transfer petition.
“The non-disclosure of such relevant facts assumes significance while considering the petitioner’s plea of inconvenience in attending the matrimonial proceedings at Patna.”
No material behind the fear of a threat
It also found that she had placed no sufficient material to back her apprehension of a threat or to show that continuing in Patna would cause hardship serious enough to justify a transfer.
“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and considering the non-disclosure of relevant facts, the stage of the matrimonial proceedings and the inconvenience likely to be caused to the opposite party, this Court is not satisfied that any sufficient ground has been made out for transfer of the case.”
Why the wife wanted Begusarai
The couple married on June 22, 2018. According to the petition, discord arose after a brief period of cohabitation, followed by dowry demands and her return to her parental home in Begusarai. The husband filed Matrimonial Case No. 346 of 2020 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna.
The wife sought a transfer to Begusarai, saying it was difficult to travel to Patna, about 110 to 120 kilometres from her parental home, and that she apprehended a threat to her safety.
The husband’s reply
In his counter affidavit, the husband said the wife had herself filed several cases at Patna and had lived there. He said the divorce case had reached an advanced stage, with issues framed and evidence under way, and that a transfer would prejudice him because he is employed outside Bihar. He denied the allegation of threat as baseless.
The result
The petition was dismissed and pending applications disposed of. The Court expressed no view on the merits of the divorce case, which remains pending before the Family Court at Patna.
What the ruling shows
Courts generally view a wife’s convenience sympathetically in matrimonial transfer petitions, but the ruling shows that the plea must be made with full disclosure. Distance and fear are weighed against the litigant’s own connection with the forum, and an omission about cases filed in the same city can tilt the balance.
The stage of the proceedings and the other side’s hardship also count. Where issues are framed and evidence is under way, a court will be slow to shift a case unless the applicant places concrete material on record.
Case Title: Rajni Kumari v. Saurabh Kumar
Case No.: Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 3462 of 2023
Bench: Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy, Patna High Court
Date of Judgment: October 30, 2026
Appearances: Braj Bhushan Poddar, Advocate, for the petitioner; Sadanand Prasad Deo, Advocate, for the opposite party